[DayZ SA] Will DayZ remain a sandbox game forever?

[Penny Sue 77]

To me one of the most important pillars of a sandbox game is freedom. Freewill and choice given to players where very little is dictated or hard-coded to limit freedom. Other games have tried this but so far all of them eventually caved in and went down the road of limiting freedom.

• Will the developers of DayZ do the same?
  
• If they do not then how will they deal with the constant, and large volume, of complaining about those who use their freedom to negatively impact other players?
  
• Will they try to encourage some semblance of balance between positive and negative interactions and choices? If they do HOW will they do that while minimizing limitations on freedom?
  

It's really difficult to stem the rampant death match mentality in online games.

Ultimately there are no permanent consequences of your actions. So what if you shoot someone and take their stuff? They just respawn on the beach. Who cares if they shoot back at me and I die? I just respawn on the beach. Who cares if I have a bandit or hero skin? Even if I didn't people would still shoot me on sight... and I respawn on the beach.

Looking back on Ultima Online it was rather similar in it's approach when first released. The game was based largely on freedom and sandbox gaming. Players were free to lie, cheat, steal, and murder their fellow players with very little consequence. People quickly learned it was actually easier to just kill other players to get what they needed and wanted. Soon PvP and killing on sight was rampant. Most players were murderers and thieves. A lot of people did stand up to them and became anti-PK players; some out for justice and others just wanted more PvP. When you died all your loot was on your corpse and anyone could take it. People could steal right out of your backpack and even those who weren't murderers or normally wouldn't steal from a live player flocked to corpses like flies and picked them clean; ultimately there was no consequence for doing so why wouldn't they?

Of course players whined and complained incessantly about this. Eventually the developers capitulated and started implementing consequences and systems to squelch the rampant PK'ing. Months and years go by with more and more strict consequences and systems. They did little to turn murderers into good little boys and girls but rather those players just stopped playing as it became harder and harder for them to be murderers. They had NO interest in playing nice with others. There is a very significant amount of people who game like this; PvP is the only real challenge to them and no mater what you make for PvE content they take zero interest in. Some PvP purely for sport and the challenge, some do it to grief you, others do it because they are lazy so it's easier to just steal your shit than get it themselves. Don't get me wrong; I'm not passing judgement on their play style. I'm just explaining that there are a lot of people who enjoy this style of game play.

A lot of what the UO devs tried to do was put justice in the hands of the players. If an anti-PK could kill a PK then the consequences would be applied to the murderer. So then you saw more murderers grouping together. There was safety in numbers because if you didn't die you could ultimately circumvent most of the consequences. The whining continued and the devs kept reacting.

Eventually they split the entire game world into two. One was this utopia where nobody was allowed to do anything harmful to another player. The other was a wonderland of freedom where these fiat consequences did not apply. Do I have to tell you where the vast majority of people flocked to? (Hint: They did not embrace freedom...)

I wonder if the grand developers of DayZ will remain steadfast when the tides of tears roll in about rampant "KoS" or even just PvP / PK'ing? Or will we have a short lived, epic, experience of true open and free gaming that will eventually be swallowed hole by good intentions?

Right now it's pretty easy to just say "QQ and go find more loot, it only takes 5 min". Here's a significant difference in UO but a lot of people are asking for it in DayZ: fortifications and things that take a lot of work to obtain or build. In UO you could buy large and small houses, place them in the game world, and it was YOURS. There were no instances... it was right there in the game world for all to see and lust for. Inside was all of your precious loot you had spent hours, days, weeks, and years accumulating. The one day someone sneaks in or kills you and steals your key... they steal all your stuff... in moments years of work was gone.

People will loose their fucking minds and rage on the forums all day and all night when this happens in DayZ. THAT'S when it gets hard for the developers to hold fast and say "QQ and go find more loot, we aren't changing a damn thing..." When some clan looses a fort they spent weeks building. People will QUIT when this happens. They will punch their monitor, throw their keyboard across the room, and never log in again.

How then will the devs respond? Will they cave in? No doubt they will say to us now "Oh, don't worry, we won't capitulate..."

The time to worry is when pressure starts boiling over from the community, sales / subscriptions start to drop due to people quitting, they bad-mouth the game to potential new customers, and the developers start saying things like "Well all this rampant murdering doesn't really fit the vision we have for this game."

I guess this is largely rehtorical... again it's easy for people to say right now they won't give in. It's much harder when thousands of players are complaining day & night.... and when you have stakeholders pressuring you with stats of declining revenue.... we'll find out in the coming months and years. It will be an epic journey with many grand adventures along the way but we won't know until we look back and analyze how it went.

Good luck and I beg you choose freedom!

[Rage VG 4033]

...I don't think I'm a high enough level to read that.

[Penny Sue 77]

Yeah, sorry =(

It's totally worth it... i swear!

[Rage VG 4033]

Yeah, sorry =(

It's totally worth it... i swear!

Allow me to put this into a Haiku:

NO NO NO NO NO

NO WAY IN HELL I'LL READ THAT

OH MY GOD MY EYES

I'm kidding, I'll read it.

[Jars (DayZ) 63]

I guess it's just a matter of horses for courses .

I am sure there will be many different types of servers , with many different rule sets and settings , to cater for probably most play styles .

It was quite interesting to see some one posting about an RP ( role play ) server , which I think could potentially be completely awesome .

Edited November 16, 2012 by Jars

[ybm 111]

Interesting argument and I'll also enjoy watching things unfold.

[niotna 2]

Liberty is to be found in setting up servers as you like. And allow people with the same game style to find each other.

Now already, there are Dayz servers that allow only PvE. Else you get banned.

That is only because the server tools seem to be insufficient to enforce certain rules.

I don't mind others play their way. As long as I am given the abilities and opportunities to play mine.

THAT is the core issue.

(BTW: not only a Dayz matter; this goes for many games. Thing is, that a lot od DEVS want to enforce one play style - the one they envision. And don't allow others to go beyond that.

I could give dozens of examples - amongst those even very recent games - but I'll only give one example: BF3 enforces the scope reflection on 8x ans 12x sniper scopes. We had a sniper clan, who very much wanted to play sniper versus sniper. We even rented a server at start. thinking it foolish to give away your sniper position with that stupid sniper scope flaring, we hoped it would be an option that could be turned off. Not so!

Result: no sniping for us the way we would like to play, with a great game, that uses a great engine. Why? Because DEVS don't allow it. It isn't part of their vision. - Small addition: sniper ghost warrior one, had a small compass with a red dot, giving away enemy positions by definition. - Wow! Very exciting! Sniping, and in real time knowing where the enemy is to be found! Only months after release, there was a patch released, giving away the possibility to not have the red dot on the compass. Result: Way too late, all potential players had left the game for what it was already months earlier. Only as good as empty MP servers to be found...

AND above all: A very big mistrust towards future releases of the same DEV. team. Talking about a missed chance, no?)

Thing is: Freedom in game setup, and indepth server control through proper tools. That is what gaming should be about. That is what makes it fun. And here the real big succesess like COD 1,2 and 4 on PC can be found.

(Once they cut off the extended server control, the series got a name of having become "child play". And they just had! (How many times players say to each other in games like Dayz: "Go play COD if this is too hard..."? That says everything, right?)

[Sutinen 635]

Wall of text, but I can answer to the title with one simple word: Yes. Or at least I hope it will remain a sandbox.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Sutinen

[Shadow Man 142]

Well I pretty much agree with everything the op said. As soon as a game gives the players absolute free will, they will all start killing each.

Even in Arma2 (not DayZ) you get people team killing randomly at your own base just because they can.

Other than servers, there is only one way to limit players from killing on sight, and its the zombies. Imagine, hundreds of zombies that can follow you indefinitely. The only way to survive is to either kill them all or barricade youself in somewhere. It would need to be nearly impossible to survive on your own though, and somehow a huge benefit to team up with other players. A player, ANY player, has got to be made to think "Thank f*ck, another player", and really feel like its valuable to not be on their own.

For the non KOS sight players this would be great, lets all build bases and develop clans and factions etc etc. But a huge number of players only play because of pvp, so we could lose all of those entirely.

I have no idea how this would be done without radically altering the game or losing a large percentage of players. The reason players kill on sight is pretty simple really. For some its the only way to guarantee you stay alive. For others its sport. After you're fully kitted out, what do you do? Well, I guess I'll head into town and look for trouble. So we create things for players to do, dare I say missions...? That is one huge can of worms.

To be honest I'm not sure you can change the way people are playing DayZ without making changes so big that it stops being the game as it is today. I can imagine a whole other mod seperate to DayZ which caters for roleplayers, probably called Z Day or something...

Other than that, the only thing is servers.

[psylnz 34]

Penny Sue you have a good handle on the motivations of the different PVP players - Those who like to grief, those who like the challenge of fighting a real thinking player and not some mindless ai, and those who see the tactical benefit of letting someone else go grab the loot, then killing them and taking it.

Shadow Man - servers and bandwidth can only handle so many variables, so there will be a limit on the number of zombies

that can be in the game at any one time. While your suggestion might encourage grouping, It could discourage people from playing the game at all, if they repeadetly get killed by mass mobs of zombies before they even have a chance to find an axe. Maybe make the better loot spots overun, or with tougher zombies.

The game industry has more or less turned alot of players into online homicidal maniacs. Not in the real world, but in their "gaming" personas. For years, just about every game has been all about shooting everything in sight. Then with online games it became deathmatch, or team deathmatch. So what alot, if not most people, get excitment out of and expect to find in a video game is to go and kill people or NPCs. If they've played alot of PVP games, they expect to kill other players.

Incentives (giving stuff) to not PVP won't work on people who like PVP. They'll do without the stuff for the joy of PVPing. They'd proudly wear a bandit skin. Disincentives (taking stuff) from those who PVP will only drive them to different games. Given the number of people complainging about it on here is usually a handful a day, and the number of people out there playing and enjoying this game as it is tends to be in the tens of thousands each day, and Rocket's steadfast commitment to not removing PVP, I think gamers who like PVP the way it is now have little to worry about.

I think the game just needs better grouping mechanisms in game, so that people that want to group up can find each other. Really though, if people wanted to put a little effort into it, they could start clans, use third party tools like teamspeak and what not to communicate and find each other in game, group up, build camps, rebuild and retrieve vehicles, hunt for food and stockpile arms, so that when they do get killed, one of their pals can pick them up off the beach in a vehicle and get them outfitted with some good weapons right away. If you check out the YouTube videos, lots of players are grouping up. I think we are used to two kinds of games - PVP games, where the object is to overtake the other player or other team, or PVE where the quests and objectives are laid out for us. In this sandbox environment, you have to lay out the quests yourselves if you want them. The stuff I listed above, like rebuilding vehicles could be considered quests. Recruiting new spawned, players and finding out weather or not you can trust them could be considered quests. Building up your own camp and group to go raid someone else's could be considered a quest.

I hope the game stays completely sandbox. There are so few games that are sandbox like this one.

[Jarried 4]

scumbag OP advocates freedom but doesn't want PVP. Everyone knows that in the zombie apocalypse the real threat is the living.

[colekern 1364]

scumbag OP advocates freedom but doesn't want PVP. Everyone knows that in the zombie apocalypse the real threat is the living.

Wow. Seriously? Scumbag? For not exactly liking getting shot for no reason?

Think before you speak. Better yet, read before you speak. He wants freedom. He makes clear in his closing sentence.

Edited November 18, 2012 by colekern

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

For peoples opinions on the topic to make sense you have to realise, freedom is a matter of perspective.

There's a lot of difference between structuring a game world and infringing peoples liberties.

The players in DayZ are given many, many freedoms, but it's still as restrictive as any other game.

It has to be, at the very least for the sake of creating a challenge and providing the tools required to overcome it. It IS still a game.

In any case, that's not a bad thing. It's quite unlike any other online experience I've had, and this topic (for me at least) is a case of, "the less you think about it the better it will be".

@Penny Sue - You clearly spent a while pondering this, Kudos. I personally like the uncertainty of it all.

Probably best not to worry about it turning into Ultima Online, lest you end up too apprehensive to enjoy it for what it is.

[logan23 118]

Interesting Post

You talk about some valid topics and concerns.

I will start off and say that Yes, I do believe DayZ will keep its sandbox.

Below I will address why I believe this and cover some of your concerns….

With Ultima Online during the Beta they entered in an ecosystem of animals population react to the world. This means if sheep are killed then wolves would get closer to human settlement and if the wolves’ population drops then the Dragons would come out. The result when testers tested it- The Players killed everything which led to the ecosystem basically non-existing. The result was the removal of the system and the introduction of the usual spawning system. Then came the issue of Player killing which DayZ could end up happening.

This actually applies to DayZ since there is a planned Zed Lifecycle which means players could end up killing every Zed on the server.

I’m going to break things down per topic-

Player actions don’t equal what Developers were thinking:

One reason Developers end up with situations where players do something they didn’t intend is because you need a psychologist and/or sociologist to look over the game/game design. They would be able to tell you what people would do and react.

Player Freedom-

Player Freedom is seen in some player’s eyes as I the player can do whatever I want and there should be no consequence for this action other then player driven. I disagree with this interpretation of Player Freedom since we saw how this hurt Ultima Online Beta.

Players should have the freedom to do as they please but like in the real world there are consequences as in all choices. If we stay up for several days with no sleep then there is a good chance that we might crash our car while driving due to the lack of sleep.

In Dungeons and Dragons, there is the dungeon master and in DayZ, that is the World and the harsh environment including the Infected is the dungeon master. They will be the ever changing challenge that will keep players from going around and killing everything or have the game become a Death match game.

DayZ can use the environment, Zeds, and resource management as tools to create these consequences which will allow it to stay as a sandbox game.

With DayZ’s weapons being able to jam and need to be up kept makes it that just because two players have guns aimed at each other in a standoff, there is a chance that you or the other player will have their gun jam. Maybe it’s better to not fire that gun or get into those fights unless you have to.

There is a good chance we will see some major changes in resources like military weapons as DayZ moves away from the idea that all player will have military hardware and loads and loads of ammo.

Also the introduction of batteries needed for certain items will also limit the over use of certain items like night vision goggles.

Weather and wounds could lead to the player getting sick.

From what I’m reading from DayZ Developers it looks like they want to constantly be pushing players to think smart with the gear they have and force them out of their make shift bases for supplies.

Now the big question is the Zed/Infected and how can they be made more of a threat.

I know DayZ is not a horror centered game but there is a lesson to be learned from Horror Games. In the link below they talk about Horror games and one interesting note they make is that when a Player becomes as or more powerful then the Creature/Threat/Zed – it becomes more of an action game and loses its fear part. (Resident Evil games is a good example of how the original and the newest one are majorly different in how they handle Horror and the creatures/threat in relation to the player’s power/ability)

DayZ needs to keep the Infected as being more powerful then the player. When they look at balancing their game they need to ask if there are ways for players to become matching power or more powerful where the Infected just means you need to waste a few of your 100 rounds in a hand full of Infected to get what you want. Resident Evil 1 is a good example where every encounter could lead to you using up all your ammo. There is a constant struggle of maintaining your health and resources.

http://penny-arcade....or-protagonists

On the topic of player killing-

There will always be player who will get a gun or weapon and just go after players, player killing is the one constant threat that will always be there and it should always be there but if you go around firing your gun or killing players this could be used in how the DayZ world changes.

Example how this could be used:

Let’s say there is a large amount of Pking and the Zed population is dropping and seem to be less of a threat. We will see more player verse Player or Clan vs Clan behavior, leading to more humans being shot dead. Now the increase of dead bodies (Zed’s food) odor will bring new waves of Zeds from locations off the map Chernarus. The large new waves of Zeds will now get in the way of the player verse player team fights since now the Zeds have become a threat again. This function alone would help keep the servers dynamic and keep players from getting bored.

Server Hoping with the same character is something that needs to be looked at since this is the one issue that could hurt DayZ's ecosystem.

:beans:I look forward to Standalone

I have full confidence in Rocket and Team.

Forgive me if i went on any tangents,..writing this after 12 midnight... :P

[badbenson (DayZ) 38]

let's be realistic. dayz's main gameplay aspects are scavenging and PvP. and that's by (non-)"design". if anything people who were looking forward to building little farms and survive peacefully should be worried about how dayz is gonna turn out. or better said they should've realised by now that dayZ just isn't that. most people still play it for the tension that the focus on gear/loot combined with PvP brings. that's what the game is about. i'm sure everyone who wants something totally different from it has already left.

i think the key is some of the stuff logan23 mentioned.

two main things:

1. the zombies/infected.

2. the amount of weapons and ammo.

in the first versions of dayz the zombies could kill you very fast and every zombie you aggroed had to be dealt with. you couldn't just run into a bush to magicly make them lose intrest in you. that meant that aggroing a few zombies while still not having a weapon could have been a death sentence.

and then Rocket reacted to the whining about the zombies being to hard (in a zombie survival game *sigh*) and started slowly degrading them to the mild annoyance they are today. just look at videos streams of people playing the game. it's not that people got better at it. the game just became flat and predictable. today there's no more planning which route to take into a village without one aggro. just rush in take what you need and rush out into the next group of trees/bushes.

this and the constant availability of lots of weapons and ammo made dayz what it is today.

so it's actually the other way around. people were constantly talking about zombies like an annoyance which had to be eliminated/reduced because it was keeping them from what else they wanted to do in the world. like: " hey zombie can you please stop it i'm trying to take aim here..." :P

the drama of being overrun by a (actually dangerous) horde because you engaged someone inside a settlement is totally gone. all the zombies do is swarm around the players like moskitos that occasionally sting you a little.

these days dayZ (hehe) is just suffering from really bad balancing. and i'm not talking about bad aim if you kill too many players or any other kind of forced consequences for doing a certain thing. it's just the core elements of the game that were "tweaked" into the totally wrong direction.

the game would be much more intresting if you actually had to manage your resources like logan23 mentioned. in my opinion that's all that's needed. no fancy mechanics just good old balancing.

Edited November 18, 2012 by badbenson

[Shadow Man 142]

in the first versions of dayz the zombies could kill you very fast and every zombie you aggroed had to be dealt with. you couldn't just run into a bush to magicly make them lose intrest in you. that meant that aggroing a few zombies while still not having a weapon could have been a death sentence.

and then Rocket reacted to the whining about the zombies being to hard (in a zombie survival game *sigh*) and started slowly degrading them to the mild annoyance they are today. just look at videos streams of people playing the game. it's not that people got better at it. the game just became flat and predictable. today there's no more planning which route to take into a village without one aggro. just rush in take what you need and rush out into the next group of trees/bushes.

I had no idea the zombies used to be like that. Thats just how I want them to be. If the zombies have already been calmed down because everyone complained then there's no hope. Its seems the majority of players don't play DayZ because its a zombie survival game. They play because they want it to be be an open world deathmatch.

For those of us that don't kos and have more of a role play idea about the game, we may just have to accept that it will only work in private servers.

When developers change a game because of what the community ask for I just despair sometimes. What makes any developer think that giving the players what they want is a good idea? They should just make the game and we play it. If we don't like it we don't play it. And thats the problem isn't it? Sales. It comes down to a need for the game to be played by as many people as possible. Even this one. I have thought for a long time now that if Rocket made this game the way HE wanted to, it would not be played by half as many people as it is now. If you were to take money out the equation it wouldn't matter how popular it was or whether he gave people what they wanted.

[hoik 415]

Player Freedom-

Players should have the freedom to do as they please but like in the real world there are consequences as in all choices. If we stay up for several days with no sleep then there is a good chance that we might crash our car while driving due to the lack of sleep.

DayZ can use the environment, Zeds, and resource management as tools to create these consequences which will allow it to stay as a sandbox game.

Yes, this is something that I bang on about all the time!

[badbenson (DayZ) 38]

Its seems the majority of players don't play DayZ because its a zombie survival game. They play because they want it to be be an open world deathmatch.

For those of us that don't kos and have more of a role play idea about the game, we may just have to accept that it will only work in private servers.

sure there are small differences in "playstyle" but basicly the game itself dictates how it's best played. it isn't and will never be like other RP concepts. the great thing about dayz is (was) that it forced you into situations which created those "stories" Rocket keeps going on about. there was never a need to imagine factors that aren't there to make it more intresting.

that's what i'm trying to say. the variaty of things that can happen to you is created by the game not the players. sure the players can decide to shoot you or not but by making shooting the only intresting thing in the game basicly boils it down to that.

sure dayz needs some more group mechanics so communication is easy and stuff. but what is really missing/has been drasticly reduced is the enviromental factor. how can survival be part of your stories if it's never a factor.

dayz doesn't have to be balanced with reducing PvP in mind. PvP is a vital part. but just making zombies a real factor again and reducing loot (especially ammo not so much weapons) spawn rates would finally make it more than just what it is now again. i'm sure you wouldn't need any other new mechanics.

and yea. people(including myself) will always kill on sight. the only problem is that military weapons and ammo for them are not really rare.

just observe your own thought process when encountering another player with different kinds of weapons. if the chance of hitting him from a longer range (not sniper long range but assault rifle long range) and you have atleast two mags (let's say M16 with 2x30rounds) you will instantly shoot at him/her.

if you have an enfield instead you get another factor. reload time for every single bullet. so if your target is moving or has cover close to him/her you'll approach the situation less impulsive. sure if you really want to kill that person you will keep trying but it will be harder and your probability of success will be lower. you can do this with any kind of weapon and you'll realise how much they influence the whole game. to see balancing of weaponary and spawn rates as restrictions is just foolish since it's actually the other way around.

it shouldn't be so much about "PvP or not to PvP?". it should be about "how to PvP and when to PvP".

people tend to see the sandbox concept to much like an image:

gameworld = area of the sandbox

loot = toys that are scattered in the sandbox

for me it's much more about decisions. you can just say; "well aren't there all kinds of weapons in a post-apocalyptic world and isn't it more realistic to make them all available?". but that's totally besides the point in my opinion. survival should be about making the best of the equipment you have. if you just have to sprint to the next baracks to get a decent gun then i'll do that for sure. it just shows how deeply flawed the spawning system of dayz is and how totally degrades the game. even reminds me of good old unreal tournament where i always rushed for the rocket launcher spawn before i even started playing. :D

so as long as it's stays like this the whole thing will never mature and always stay this one-dimensional. and just because "in a zombie apocalypse the living are the bigger threat" doesn't mean the "dead"/infected have to be almost no threat at all. they should be less of a threat because of their lack of intelligence not the number of health points they can take from you. the concept of zombies/infected has always been: one you can easily handle but several are deadly (when they get too close). so basicly 5-8 zombies should be as deadly as one human player. 2-3 hits = death. again. that's the kind of balancing dayz needs. not bandit masks and humanity values. making a good sandbox is all about balancing.

[Steppwolf 97]

Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.

[dallas 5195]

Depends on your definition of sandbox.

If you define a sandbox as a space, where only your imagination puts a limit on that you can build, then no. The ingame mission editor is ArmA's sandbox and I predict, initially the standalone will launch without it.

If you define a sandbox as a place you can choke other kids, stab them with sharp shovels, bash them with heavy spades and fling old dog turds around without getting a reputation as a troubled kid, then no also.

I think Rocket is forced to keep some kind of humanity indicator in the game, not only to protect us, who are clearly unskilled, bad players, but to maintain authenticity in the survival experience. Without humanity gameplay will again be limited to pure deathmatch, where every interaction concludes in a murder. We tried than and we then re-implemented humanity.

The only thing that changes by having bandit skins, is bandits who shoot everyone on sight, now are equally engaged by those they before hunted with immunity. Bandit skin actually enhances PvP, because us unskilled coop-playing-AI-hunting bads now participate in PvP and shoot your bandits down on sight, like you did us. But maybe that's the problem, that you no longer can prey on scores of survivors and get away scott free?

[niotna 2]

I like as much freedom as possible in any game. In DAYZ though, people should think of giving players a reason to kill others. As well NOT to kill others.

Else, the genre will tend too much towards a form of "COD with zombies" type of game.

It only depends on how limited or unlimited our phantasy will be.

Also, these settings related, should be alterable in server tools.

Why not add a "warning sound" when other player is within 50 meter range? Or within viewing range?

Why not allow players to choose to play "friendly", and allow them to have much more health (5x the usual), than those choosing "bandit" (But let them die when killing another player who didn't start shooting at them, for not to allow misuse their choice) Why? Bandit has to do lots more to kill "friendlies", While killing other "bandits" isn't any harder.

Bandit has always the dillemma: Should I start this fight, or not?

One of the main reasons for me, not to like the game so much anymore, is the almost always Killing On Sight happening lately. If it would have any reason, I could understand.

But there is no benefit, and thus no motivation to not kill other players, and play together.

It just get very very boring, to being shot all the time, carrying almost nothing, not being able to even start playing a game (spawn killers). It just takes away motivation.

For me, if on certain servers, a "wanna take revenge?" button would appear, being killed for the xth time at spawn or close by, allowing to respawn in the neighborhood, fully equipped to do just that, would be welcomed very much... Then those dirtbags would have something to worry about all of a sudden.

Talking about a challenge, everybody yells about, that they want... Well, that would be one.

[Simmon 11]

scumbag OP advocates freedom but doesn't want PVP. Everyone knows that in the zombie apocalypse the real threat is the living.

This.

It's debatable if the dev team is smart enough to know the way to reduce deathmatch mentality while staying instep with the sandbox vision, is to vastly increase/improve the PvE aspects like hunting rather than increase bandit punishments like there already i.e. a slow running pace. Bad aim, getting thirsty/hungry faster, louder footsteps and other such gamey efforts are no doubt on the cards for SA. This won't make an iota of difference to those who play "deathmatch" (or AKA players with RL friends / no interest in role-playing with strangers i.e. evidently the majority) who will continue to play their style. Unless PvP is just removed that is..

The Guerilla Warfare Tactics thread (at least the introduction part) that is also in the Suggestions section right now, is an indicator of what really excited people at the prospect of DayZ and what keeps the happy gamers continuing to game rather than whine. However it does appear that Rocket will go with satisfying the "softer" audience, shall we say, so the OP will get his wish and see a much more gamey nice-guy-apocalypse product.

Then some badass is gonna come along make an Arma 3 post apocalyptic mod with only wild-game and humans to sustain one's stomach. It will be sandbox once more. There will still be loot building, hive and perma-death, because that is the part about DayZ which sets it apart from other "deathmatch" games. It results in tangible loss, with the accompanying adrenaline rush, every time a fire fight breaks out. This was really the key to the ongoing success of the mod for the wider audience.

[Cobb (DayZ) 55]

Play nice. It took you one sentence to insinuate that the SA development team isn't intelligent enough as a group to know what they should be doing.

How about we keep the discussion on point without throwing around cheap insults.

[badbenson (DayZ) 38]

Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.

lol. way to go using a great quote totally out of context in a discussion about a game. :D

the original is not about freedom of choice. good job hobby demagog. ;)

why would anyone think that the humanity system changed anyone's PvP behaviour. it's in my opinion the most gamey part of dayz and just a value people look at who need something to work on. because deep inside they need somekind of moral justification for what they do (especially so called "bandits"). "no no i'm not a scumbag i'm a bandit, it's my job, i live by a code, bla bla bla...". or just look at the outcry when people thought the debug monitor was totally removed. some people just need that kill counter so they can tell themselfs how awesome they are. not everyone can find enjoyment in the process of things. most people need a value to approve them like their mom telling them "you did good honey".

anymore "mechanics" like this would just ruin the game. especially punishment systems.

i personally shoot everyone i see if there's a chance he/she has some ammo for my gun/ a gun i want. so then i can go on and shoot the next guy better. survival of the fittest...uhm best equipped person. that's what it is. it will never change. deal with it.

the people advocating total freedom when it comes to choice/commonness of weapons who start crying when people suggest making certain weapons rarer or even removing some of them are just silly. in a PvP centered game weapons are what make the gameplay. every...EVERY good competitive shooter has somekind of balance in place not to save people from being shot but to keep variaty in gameplay and make every piece of equipment valueble instead of just having certain weapons/vehicles that win the game. it's just what makes a good game. there is a reason that dayz doesn't include tanks. Rocket sure knows how that would change the game. if it was totally "realistic" and open and free he would've just included all arma equipments...and if you're one of those who rely on a certain weapon to have fun. making it rarer will only make it more valueable and increase the gratifivation when you find one. if you can't kill people with a double barreled shotgun....well, get some skills.

it's just funny that people except the fact that there is no TWS sniper rifle or LMG in the game (anymore) but start babbling about total freedom of choice and realism when some people suggest to remove the L85 (i personally have no problem with that weapon at all. just trying to make a point here).

so please let's not turn another good thread into a fight between two popular opinions where facts and the willingness of actually solving problems are totally absent. this is not a philosphical issue. so stop with the pompous statements already.

[Siberian (DayZ) 527]

personaly i dont think there is anything different we can expect from the SA vs. what we see today in the mod,

the KoS epidemic will continue, maybe have a slight lull at first launch as people go about exploring the map again, but in very short order it will be camping the hills above Electro to pop nubs as per usual..

i dont think Rocket can fix DayZ without putting into places rulesets vs play styles.

with freedom ala DayZ ur gunna be stuck in a game world full of asshats. simple as that.